American troops in Germany are important for America:
That’s because the Americans are there not only to deter Russian aggression, which they could also do from Poland — whose prime minister immediately put up his hand to accommodate any surplus U.S. troops. The “Amis,” as Germans call the the American forces, also use Germany as their hub for missions in the Middle East and Africa. GIs flying to or from Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, pass through Ramstein, the biggest U.S. airbase on foreign soil. If wounded, they get treated at nearby Landstuhl.
When I defended the American troop presence in Europe in a 2003 Military Review article (see pages 15-20)--at a higher level than we have now--I wanted to deter a potentially hostile Russia, and I argued that bases in Europe are important to deploying American forces into an "arc of crisis" spanning from West Africa to Afghanistan. That remains valid and the need to deter Russia is obviously more needed now.
But calling the plan a "disastrous mistake" is premature without knowing any details. If the troop reduction in Germany involves moving American combat and combat support units to Poland or Romania, deterring Russia is enhanced. And the 25,000 left manning critical infrastructure would still support fully the ability to project power into the arc of crisis or eastern NATO.
So let's wait and see what the details--any details--are before passing judgment. If American forces are to be pulled back to the continental United States, I'll agree that this is a mistake. Just as I've thought reducing our ground forces in Europe to what they are now is a mistake.
UPDATE: This article defends the American presence in Europe but admits is has no idea what the details are. Troops going to Poland would be fine the author says. And he even admits that with a smaller footprint in Germany, Germany can still function as a transportation hub.
But I don't think this is a case of "vindictiveness" against Germany given years of NATO insistence--well before Trump was more vocal in that insistence--that Germany commit to spend the NATO minimum--2% of GDP--which Germany agreed to during the Obama administration.
So a mixed bag of good points colored by TDS interpreation. Let's wait for the details.
UPDATE: This author is outraged despite no details and says this betrays our close ally Germany--the ally that refuses to carry its load of NATO defense with a military that could handle something bigger than the CHAZ threat.
And Trump is not the first president to reduce troop strength in Germany since we won the Cold War. Hell, in 2003 (see pages 15-20) I defended keeping an Army corps in Europe, which would mostly mean Germany given our bases.
UPDATE: America's position in Poland is strengthening, and we still don't know what the fate of nearly 10,000 American troops will be.
